Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Richbee · 05-10-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacey Melissa

Wanna talk about the lineage of Jesus?

In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

Could the Messiah be anyone less?

Hotlink: The Genealogy of the Messiah

Gamera · 05-11-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacey Melissa

This deserves it's own thread, I think. It wasn't getting much attention buried deep in the wandering first thread I posted it in.
----------------------------------------

Wanna talk about the lineage of Jesus? I do. I love talking about it, because there are three versions in the Bible - Matthew, Luke, and 1 Chronicles - all contradictory. I especially enjoy comparing Matthew and 1 Chronicles. The author of Matthew, in chapter 1, lists the fourteen generations between Abraham and David, and then the fourteen more between David and the deportation to Babylon, and finally the fourteen between the deportation and Jesus. Just one problem. 1 Chronicles 3 lists seventeen generations between David and the deportation. The author of Matthew left out Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who were listed in verses 11 and 12 of the Chronicles passage. This is presumably so that the author of Matthew could keep his pattern of fourteens going (see Matt 1:17), but the fact remains that at least one of the two accounts must be factually incorrect.

I recall one apologetics site (maybe it was Tekton, but I can’t find it now) mentions something about the word used for “son” can sometimes skip generations, so a “son” could actually be a grandson or great-grandson, for example. Problem is, Matthew doesn’t allow for generation skipping like that, as its author specifically says there were exactly 14 generations, and lists those generations. Chronicles doesn’t give a number, but you can count them, and you’ll see that there must be no less than 17, because that’s how many are explicitly listed. There could be even more than 17, if we take into account the “son” translation ambiguity. We do have a reasonable explanation for why the author of Matthew probably only listed 14, and said there were 14. That was as some sort of memory-aiding device (repeating 14’s) that was used to aid oral transmission* of the story. That’s all fine and well, but at least one account or the other (Matthew or Chronicles) must be factually false.

There’s two reasons why that’s one of my favorite Bible contradictions. One is that it is airtight. There isn’t even a tortured explanation possible for this contradiction, as is the case with so many other contradictions. The other reason is that the lineage of Jesus is essential to his messiahship. One criteria for messiahship was Davidic decent. As if the lack of sperm from Joseph wasn’t already damning enough to the purported Davidic decent, it seems the author of Matthew didn’t even really take seriously the task of accurately relaying the lineage to his readers.
------------------------------------------

Stumpjumper (formerly singletrack1) responded with an explanation involving the numerological translation of "David" being 14. I put that apologetic attempt to bed in a subsequent post.

Anyone else care to try apologizing for this contradiction? Or can I continue to call it "airtight"?

There have been all kinds of attempts to reconcile the apparent differences, some plausible, others not. I think it's fair to say that if one is an adherent of the bizarre doctrine of inerrancy, this causes anxiety. For the rest of us normal Christians, it's not a problem. The genaeologies are more less the same, and they go back to David, which appears to be the real point, at least for a Jewish audience of the 1st century CE. If one or more of them got the details wrong, who cares? It has no impact on the kerygma of the gospels.

Javaman · 05-11-2006, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king.

Nope, just eligible... except that he wouldn't be since he wasn't actually Joseph's son - if he were, though, Jeconiah would still be in his lineage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man.

Granted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God.

Whoah! You know, of course, that doesn't follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

Could the Messiah be anyone less?

Well, he has to be a whole lot more! That the person you call Ha Messiach didn't do the things he was supposed to means you should keep waiting. That's what the Jews are doing, you know. It's their prophesy. Since Yeshua is expressly excluded from being the messiah, he can't be the messiah. Make sense?

Jack the Bodiless · 05-11-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Wanna talk about the lineage of Jesus?

In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

Could the Messiah be anyone less?

Hotlink: The Genealogy of the Messiah

Richbee, why did you ignore all but the first seven words of Stacey Melissa's post, and the entire topic of this thread?

Your answer to the question is obviously "no". You don't want to talk about it.

...So why are you here?

RED DAVE · 05-11-2006, 05:50 AM

From Richbee:

Quote:

the Jewish God-Man King.

I would be very entertained by seeing your OT source for the messiah being a god. This notion is so totally contradictory to the Jewish belief system that everytime I see a Xtian mouth it, I want to giggle.

I remember talking about this in Hebrew School when I was a kid. The notion that the messiah was actually god was the dumbest fucking thing we ever heard of theologically. Still is.

What Xtians are saying is that we Jews didn't know our own religion and that you knew better.

RED DAVE

Stacey Melissa · 05-11-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There have been all kinds of attempts to reconcile the apparent differences, some plausible, others not. I think it's fair to say that if one is an adherent of the bizarre doctrine of inerrancy, this causes anxiety. For the rest of us normal Christians, it's not a problem. The genaeologies are more less the same, and they go back to David, which appears to be the real point, at least for a Jewish audience of the 1st century CE. If one or more of them got the details wrong, who cares? It has no impact on the kerygma of the gospels.

My OP was directed at inerrantists. What I'm trying to do with it is demonstrate an absolutely airtight contradiction. It also doesn't hurt that the material involved with this particular contradiction - Jesus' supposed Davidic descent - is so important to most sects of Christianity.

Stacey Melissa · 05-11-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

Could the Messiah be anyone less?

Hotlink: The Genealogy of the Messiah

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with my OP.

Vivisector · 05-11-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

What Xtians are saying is that we Jews didn't know our own religion and that you knew better.

I've always said, if you really want to know what a Hebrew word means, or how to interpret Hebrew scripture, just ask a non-Hebrew speaking Christian

Cheers,

V.

Nuwanda · 05-11-2006, 02:52 PM

Feeling a little left out here folks... Could someone please attack my post (#10). I don't mind waiting but I'm a glutten for punishment. :banghead:

spin · 05-11-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

I remember talking about this in Hebrew School when I was a kid. The notion that the messiah was actually god was the dumbest fucking thing we ever heard of theologically. Still is.

When Jesus -- umm, god -- died, well that should've been it, shouldn't it? I mean, with no-one at the helm, the universe should have stopped, right? God is unique, right, or was Jesus only part of god? What then was the benefit of all this dying stuff, when god didn't really die for us? It was more like temporarily cutting off an appendage, say, a big toe, I suppose. Anyway, what's a little dying in this world, when you just might have an immortal soul -- gods know about what reality ultimately is, so what's the big deal, if god's big toe gets amputated in the mundane world when one has the sure knowledge that it will self-reattach? God is beyond mundane death in this world, isn't he? How does the temporal death of his big toe affect us? He didn't die in any meaningful sense. He was never alive -- well, in that temporal earthly sense. He doesn't therefore live in any meaningful sense, I'd have to guess. No blood flows through his veins, no heart beating, no sense of physical pain.

The only meaningful death for a god is the termination of existence, not the loss of a temporarily assumed body. What's 30 years to a timeless entity anyway? Besides, it wasn't the complete timeless entity, was it? Someone was at the helm, when the god-man was trapsing around Galilee, when the big toe was on the hoof.

So what's the big deal that a god who had hardened his own non-tangible heart so often that he cut himself off from any direct contact with this world finally sent his big toe to give the dummies down here the umpteenth break after umpteen times relenting from all that metaphorical heart hardening, saying you all should die, but I'll die in your place, if you'll believe that I did it for you out of the goodness of my own unbeating little heart and you are abjectly willing to give up your earthly desires (and all critical thought) to worship me... or the rest of me? (Now try and parse that sentence.)

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2006, 02:52 PM	#19
Nuwanda Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Phoenix Posts: 412	Feeling a little left out here folks... Could someone please attack my post (#10). I don't mind waiting but I'm a glutten for punishment. :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.